Inheritance [Archive]

Elect Marx

8th August 2005, 07:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:56 PM
OK. Clearly you are a retional person... I think not. Grow Up.
Ouch! Clearly YOU are not rational; you think I have no proof without any basis; perhaps you should take your own advice, only apply it to logical thought processing.

And you know that the leaders of today are all descendants of slave owners. Do you have any proof?

That wasn't the point I was making and I don't care about the proof :o
The matter that is really important is the fact that industry is inherited to a greater or lesser degree and if you know anything about economics, you understand that currency cycles around from consumers to companies and back to a somewhat lesser extent.

So, the profit that was taken can only still be in the hands of those with most of the money.

The rich jews are most certainly were not slave owners.

What? Why couldn't any Jewish person have taken some of the profit? For that matter, why are we specifically talking about "jews?" Are you anti-Semitic or something?

In fact many of their ancestors were slaves.

So what? The profit taken from slaves could be in the hands of their descendants; not likely but possible. What is the point of this tangent anyway?

J.K. Rowling went from being a poor single mother to a billionaire, and she didn't use anything besides a computer and her mind, oh and of course support from the publishing company and movie industry that made her very rich, while taking some profits for themselves..

I once knew this guy that didn't have a computer and lived on the street...
Stories are fun; aren't they?

The Google billionaires that migrated from Russia were definitely slave owners, you should get them.

Brilliant.

No; Brilliant is addressing the points people didn't make. You sir, are Brilliant ;)

You actually bring up a good point. Would you be satisfied with just equalizing things, and then starting over capitalism again.

:lol: Would you be satisfied with me promising to not cut off your hands this week?

I think the only reason capitalism seems to be a failing system for you extreme leftists is that is never started off equally. It was just extended from feudalism and mercantilism.

Now you are thinking; good. My question though is: if you understand that capitalism is failing, why are you supporting it?

Would that be satisfactory? Bring everyone to equality, start over again and see how it goes?

No; in order to be financially equal we would need everyone to have control of the means of production and that would require a classless society; THAT is all I want.

Maybe in another thousand years we'll need to do it again?

Try 50 if we get that far. The people that held power before would use the same violent means to take it again, if we don't revert to feudalism. Maybe we would last a little longer if you killed the entire ruling class but I find that a bit extreme.

You do know that capitalism hasn't come even close to 1000 years right?

quincunx5

8th August 2005, 08:10

You are not worth arguing with. I ask you for proof of your assertion that
100% OF THOSE THAT ARE RICH NOW == DESCENDANTS OF SLAVE OWNERS.

I give you some examples of people that clearly have no relation. J.K Rowling is the author of the Harry Potter series (not a fan). And you give me nothing but BS.

Mujer Libre

8th August 2005, 08:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:10 AM
You are not worth arguing with. I ask you for proof of your assertion that
100% OF THOSE THAT ARE RICH NOW == DESCENDANTS OF SLAVE OWNERS.

I give you some examples of people that clearly have no relation. J.K Rowling is the author of the Harry Potter series (not a fan). And you give me nothing but BS.
I just read through the thread, and at no stage was that assertion made.
Please learn to read, or rather to understand before you get all huffy...

Edit: Also JK Rowling is not a "leader of industry." Her case is an aberration. I mean, if it wasn't don't you think everyone would have best selling books on the market?

Elect Marx

8th August 2005, 08:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:10 AM
You are not worth arguing with. I ask you for proof of your assertion that
100% OF THOSE THAT ARE RICH NOW == DESCENDANTS OF SLAVE OWNERS.
I never made such an assertion; your lies arn't worth addressing :P

I give you some examples of people that clearly have no relation. J.K Rowling is the author of the Harry Potter series (not a fan). And you give me nothing but BS.

I answered your questions and responded to your pathetic attempt at mockery; what else do you want?

quincunx5

8th August 2005, 08:22

I never made such an assertion; your lies arn't worth addressing

It can be tracked quite easily; it is the same wealth in the hands of the leaders of industry today. All you would need to do is take a portion off the top and I would suggest you use it to feed people everywhere, as well as giving healthcare where it is sorely needed.

Actually; give the rulling class a choice: they could pick where to spend the money but they would have to spend it until people had sustainable lives (including being healthy). I have the feeling the rulers would make healthcare, housing and food affordable if THEY had to pay for it.

Now I'm just pulling quotes out of my ass. Are you not the same person who wrote that? You should be aware that someone else is obviously using your account.

Xvall

8th August 2005, 08:22

How does it make sense to have descendants of slave owners to pay descendants of slaves?

It doesn't.

And nor does it make sense for people to recieve their parent's fortunes without working a single minute for it.

quincunx5

8th August 2005, 08:24

I answered your questions and responded to your pathetic attempt at mockery; what else do you want?

I want reperations for your mistreatment of neophyte posters. You have caused me great emotional anguish.

Elect Marx

8th August 2005, 08:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:22 AM
[QUOTE]It can be tracked quite easily; it is the same wealth in the hands of the leaders of industry today. All you would need to do is take a portion off the top and I would suggest you use it to feed people everywhere, as well as giving healthcare where it is sorely needed.

Now I'm just pulling quotes out of my ass. Are you not the same person who wrote that?
Alright; now you just have to point out where I said "100% OF THOSE THAT ARE RICH NOW == DESCENDANTS OF SLAVE OWNERS."

You should be aware that someone else is obviously using your account.

Unless... oh no, I'm the one obviously using my account :o :lol:

quincunx5

8th August 2005, 08:30

It doesn't.

And nor does it make sense for people to recieve their parent's fortunes without working a single minute for it.

You are arguing that children do not have a right to receive. I am arguing for the parent's right to give.

Actually they have worked for it. They provided love, companionship, and if they are old enough maybe some education to their parents. Is that something you can put a price on?

If family works very hard all their life, why should they not pass it on to their children? Or anyone they wish for that matter. Why should your wife/husband/partner or lover(s) not get it?

Elect Marx

8th August 2005, 08:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:24 AM

I answered your questions and responded to your pathetic attempt at mockery; what else do you want?

I want reperations for your mistreatment of neophyte posters. You have caused me great emotional anguish.
So you want a cookie? I didn't complain when you toll me to grow up, even though I've seen that phrase used irrationally enough times that I should have stated a compliant about unoriginality :P

Elect Marx

8th August 2005, 08:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:30 AM
Actually they have worked for it. They provided love, companionship, and if they are old enough maybe some education to their parents. Is that something you can put a price on?
You are putting a price on it; inheritance.

I'm sure the surrounding community has done a lot of work too but rather than supporting others, it is best to hoard wealth; right?

If family works very hard all their life, why should they not pass it on to their children? Or anyone they wish for that matter. Why should your wife/husband/partner or lover(s) not get it?

Because they didn't do the work? Why should anyone pool wealth to begin with? Why not give it to those that obviously need it? If all inheritance money was given to the poor; poverty wouldn't exist!

quincunx5

8th August 2005, 08:40

It can be tracked quite easily; it is the same wealth in the hands of the leaders of industry today.

Let's see if you can follow your own logic. I asked you why it makes sense to have descendants of slave owners to pay descendants of slaves? How would you even track that?

You tell me

It can be tracked quite easily; it is the same wealth in the hands of the leaders of industry today. All you would need to do is take a portion off the top and I would suggest you use it to feed people everywhere, as well as giving healthcare where it is sorely needed.

In your statement "It" refers to SLAVE OWNERSHIP. And you say that it belongs to the leaders of industry today! You used the word same, that implies "==" or "=".

I converted what you said into a simple representation:
100% OF THOSE THAT ARE RICH NOW == DESCENDANTS OF SLAVE OWNERS

One can also apply the reflective property and get:
DESCENDANTS OF SLAVE OWNERS == 100% OF THOSE THAT ARE RICH NOW

Do you need me to simplify?

quincunx5

8th August 2005, 08:51

I'm sure the surrounding community has done a lot of work too but rather than supporting others, it is best to hoard wealth; right?

I'm talking about any type of person, rich or middle or poor. The surrounding community can do the same. Does freedom mean anything to you?

Because they didn't do the work?

Sure they did. They kept up the house, helped you raise the kids, kept you emotionally stable and sexually satisfied.

Why should anyone pool wealth to begin with? Why not give it to those that obviously need it? If all inheritance money was given to the poor; poverty wouldn't exist!

Fuck, because I don't care about the people who need it. I'm just a lowly being that knows possibly like 200 or so people. Why should I not put these people on my priority.

I don't want to give it to the needy, because they will do something stupid like spawn hundreds of other people who are also needy.

Elect Marx

8th August 2005, 08:55

Originally posted by quincunx5+Aug 8 2005, 01:40 AM--> (quincunx5 @ Aug 8 2005, 01:40 AM) In your statement "It" refers to SLAVE OWNERSHIP. And you say that it belongs to the leaders of industry today! You used the word same, that implies "==" or "=". [/b]
Here is my quote, emphasized for you:

313C7 iVi4RX
I converted what you said into a simple representation:
100% OF THOSE THAT ARE RICH NOW == DESCENDANTS OF SLAVE OWNERS

Right, you converted it, adding 100% and "DESCENDANTS OF SLAVE OWNERS," making it false to claim I said it.

Do you need me to simplify?

If that helps you understand but I in no way need it.

quincunx5

8th August 2005, 09:04

Here is my quote, emphasized for you:

It can be tracked quite easily; it is the same wealth in the hands of the leaders of industry today.

Whatever! I give up. You win. I hope you're happy that you evaded your own point. Perhaps you can explain in simpler terms the answer to my question.

Elect Marx

8th August 2005, 09:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:04 AM
Whatever! I give up. You win.
Uh.. hurray? This isn't a game to me and I hope it isn't one to you.

I hope you're happy that you evaded your own point.

If you want to say that but you haven't proven it; that is just a hollow assertion.
I have made a substantial argument and you have avoided it; that is how the posts are recorded.

Perhaps you can explain in simpler terms the answer to my question.

I answered multiple questions... I'd be willing to answer others. Maybe you should ask a simpler question if you want a simple answer?

quincunx5

8th August 2005, 09:31

I have made a substantial argument and you have avoided it; that is how the posts are recorded.

I can say the same thing. Forget it.

Elect Marx

8th August 2005, 09:36

Originally posted by quincunx5+Aug 8 2005, 02:31 AM--> (quincunx5 @ Aug 8 2005, 02:31 AM)
313C7 iVi4RX
I have made a substantial argument and you have avoided it; that is how the posts are recorded.

I can say the same thing. [/b]
Yes but you would be lying; I have responded to almost everything you've said since my post and you haven't addressed a large portion of my points.

Forget it.

You can just stop posting if you don't care enough to discuss.

Elect Marx

8th August 2005, 19:49

It seems you don't care enough to discuss.

Funny that you would make so many unfounded assertions and never defend them...

apathy maybe

17th August 2005, 04:15

It is disappointing to get only one supporter of the practice of a dead person choosing where their accumulated wealth goes.

Liberals go on about a persons 'right' to do what they would with their own property. But once that person it dead, why should they have any rights at all? Do dead people have property; do they have a right to decide where their property goes after they die? You say that they decided before they died what to do with the stuff, but the question above.

As to where the property would go, that wasn't the question. But my answer would be, back to the community.
Libertarians believe that the world is some how unowned at some point. And thus, people can claim parts of the world and thus own it. Only trouble is that once all the world is claimed, there is none left for the children. If when a person died their stuff became "unowned" again, then there would be opportunities for future generations to claim that stuff.

quincunx5

17th August 2005, 04:49

And thus, people can claim parts of the world and thus own it. Only trouble is that once all the world is claimed, there is none left for the children. If when a person died their stuff became "unowned" again, then there would be opportunities for future generations to claim that stuff.

When people die it goes to their children or anyone else they want it to go to. The children may sell their property, blow up their property, or break it up and sell it off in tiny affordable pieces. They can also donate it as well

What your suggesting is forecibly taking the dead's property and giving to random children. That is just plain stupid.

Commie-Pinko

17th August 2005, 06:23

I think a small portion of the estate money should be taken for something socially useful, but most of the money should pass on to the heirs. I think we need a reasonable estate tax. It's absurd to take most or all of it. THat's not a reasonable or fair tax. Wouldn't you, as workers who struggled all your life, want your children to have a part of what you made? That makes sense to me. Why would you want to prevent your children from ever getting what your family had?

The average person does not abuse inheritence. It's usually the very very wealthy who pass on billion dollar estates to their bratty little children (Paris Hilton IE).

What bothers me is when NeoConservatives support the keeping of estates (passing wealth onto people who don't earn it), but then they decry the poor for getting welfare money they didn't earn. If one is going to use the criterion of "earned" to delineate who deserves to get what, then they should not apply a double standard. Their heirs didn't earn the fortune any more than the poor earned the welfare checks.

Elect Marx

17th August 2005, 07:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 10:07 PM

And thus, people can claim parts of the world and thus own it. Only trouble is that once all the world is claimed, there is none left for the children. If when a person died their stuff became "unowned" again, then there would be opportunities for future generations to claim that stuff.

When people die it goes to their children or anyone else they want it to go to. The children may sell their property, blow up their property, or break it up and sell it off in tiny affordable pieces. They can also donate it as well

What your suggesting is forecibly taking the dead's property and giving to random children. That is just plain stupid.
Are you done avoiding the argument or do you only like to argue when people don't require you to prove your assertions?

quincunx5

17th August 2005, 08:06

You refused to restate your argument in a way that makes sense.

Not only that but you also said:

your lies arn't worth addressing

So why are you still pursuing this without clarification?

EDIT:
I will restate the question:

Those who die with in debt -- DO NOT pass that debt onto their heirs. How does it make sense to have descendants of slave owners to pay descendants of slaves? How would you even track that? How much would they get? How do you pay for things in the past?

Xvall

18th August 2005, 01:56

You are arguing that children do not have a right to receive. I am arguing for the parent's right to give.

I don't care about trivial family heirlooms. I'm referring mainly to property, which shouldn't exist in the first place.

Actually they have worked for it. They provided love, companionship, and if they are old enough maybe some education to their parents. Is that something you can put a price on?

Asinine sentamentalism. They didn't work for anything. Bill Gate's children did not do anything vital to preserve his company or his fortune; regardless, they're going to get it all, probably without working a day in their lives.

If family works very hard all their life, why should they not pass it on to their children?

Because their children didn't work for it. Aren't you a capitalism. The entire basis of your ideology is "People can have their property/money because they worked for it; people shouldn't be given handouts". In spite of this, you have no problem with people being handed fortunes. Inheritance is one of the main reasons that capitalism, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, "Isn't fair". All people aren't created equally and given the same opportunities in a capitalist system; some of them end up inheriting the world just because of their parents. You like to call it "inheritance", though most scholars would refer to a similar system as a "monarchy".

Or anyone they wish for that matter. Why should your wife/husband/partner or lover(s) not get it?

Because they didn't work for it.

Xvall

18th August 2005, 01:58

As to where the property would go, that wasn't the question. But my answer would be, back to the community.

Percicely.

quincunx5

18th August 2005, 02:41

Asinine sentamentalism. They didn't work for anything. Bill Gate's children did not do anything vital to preserve his company or his fortune; regardless, they're going to get it all, probably without working a day in their lives.

What Bill plans to do has been refuted elsewhere. Most of his money will go to his charity organization. You know nothing of what they did.

Stealing it in name of the community is an asinine sentiment!

Because their children didn't work for it. Aren't you a capitalism. The entire basis of your ideology is "People can have their property/money because they worked for it; people shouldn't be given handouts"

That's not what capitalism is. It's about entering into voluntary contracts. IF someone wants to give you a handout, you can gladly accept it. What's wrong is having the government or community forcefully taking what's your, and giving it to someone else.

In spite of this, you have no problem with people being handed fortunes. Inheritance is one of the main reasons that capitalism, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, "Isn't fair". All people aren't created equally and given the same opportunities in a capitalist system; some of them end up inheriting the world just because of their parents.

You fail to understand that wealth has not limit. It is something that can be created and destroyed naturally in the free market.

You like to call it "inheritance", though most scholars would refer to a similar system as a "monarchy".

The poor and the middle inherit too. It may not be substantial but who are you to judge?

So you are telling me that society today is ruled by ONE family who possesses all the land and passes it onto their heirs?

Who are these idiotic scholars?

Because they didn't work for it.

You would deny a poor old widow her husband's meager fortune?

Xvall

18th August 2005, 04:31

What Bill plans to do has been refuted elsewhere. Most of his money will go to his charity organization. You know nothing of what they did.

I'm sure the Gates children will be given absolutely nothing when Bill dies. At the moment, he's only giving his children an allocated 1,000 dollars a week. :rolleyes:

Stealing it in name of the community is an asinine sentiment!

What's wrong is having the government or community forcefully taking what's your, and giving it to someone else.

Property is theft. It's not really "stealing" since the inheritant never had it in the first place.

You fail to understand that wealth has not limit. It is something that can be created and destroyed naturally in the free market.

It's not that wealth doesn't have a "limit", it's that it doesn't have any actual value.

The poor and the middle inherit too. It may not be substantial but who are you to judge?

If they didn't work for it, why should they get it?

So you are telling me that society today is ruled by ONE family who possesses all the land and passes it onto their heirs? Who are these idiotic scholars?

I didn't say that we lived under a monarchy. I compared the notion of inheritance to monarchism.

You would deny a poor old widow her husband's meager fortune?

Probably not. I already told you that I was mainly referring to things like property and large fortunes. In a communist society, money wouldn't exist, so we probably wouldn't have to worry about anyone's "fortune" to begin with.

Commie-Pinko

18th August 2005, 04:52

Property cannot logically be theft, since no one owned the land anyway. People stake claim to land. Originally (in a state of nature), no one owns it; they simply stake their claim and defend it.

If no one owned in, you cannot be stealing it.

Mujer Libre

18th August 2005, 05:27

Originally posted by Commie-[email protected] 18 2005, 04:10 AM
Property cannot logically be theft, since no one owned the land anyway. People stake claim to land. Originally (in a state of nature), no one owns it; they simply stake their claim and defend it.

If no one owned in, you cannot be stealing it.
What if the land belonged to the community as a whole and that everyone could use? Then, when one person randomly decides that nobody else from the community can use a tract of land, wouldn't you say that was theft?

You're taking a very Eurocentric view of land-tenure. I find it interesting that it was that same view that led (at least contributed) to the assumption that Australia was Terra Nullius and that Indigenous people could be dispossessed of their land.

Commie-Pinko

18th August 2005, 06:38

What if the land belonged to the community as a whole and that everyone could use? Then, when one person randomly decides that nobody else from the community can use a tract of land, wouldn't you say that was theft?

You're taking a very Eurocentric view of land-tenure. I find it interesting that it was that same view that led (at least contributed) to the assumption that Australia was Terra Nullius and that Indigenous people could be dispossessed of their land.

First off, I would like to point that that the concept of theft is also a human-centric creation. Theft doesn't exist in any other animal species. A rat can steal a piece of cheese, and it's not guilty of theft, because theft is a legal concept based on another legalistic concept--ownership.

Secondly, the concept of Ownership, as mentioned above, is also culturally relative and subjective. According to Linquistics: Ownership is the Legal right to the possession of a thing. Legal systems are human creations. There are none in nature. They're products of civilization. Both ownership and "theft" are human abstract inventions.

Theft is taking that which anther legally owns. However, therein lies the problem as you can see above. Both concepts are imaginary. There's no justification for saying anything TRUELY is owned by anyone else or that the Community owned the land in the first place. Ownership is a human abstract invention, just like ethics. It's subjective and culturally relative. The Community doesn't own the land any more than an individual does, so there's no reason to asume that ONE or the OTHER is doing something it shouldn't. It's arbitrary and subjective to claim that society could own the land originally, but an individual couldn't.

Why?

In a State of Nature, nothing owns anything. People invented the idea of "ownership" , and it's a more extreme form of other animalistic traits. We are possessive like other animals, but we take it a step further. For example, a humming bird is a viciously territorial animal. It stakes a piece of land and defends it. You wouldn't say the humming bird OWNS the land. Humans are merely another animal. In a state of nature, we, nor society, "owns" the land. We artificially say we do because we are meticulous creatures who like things to be official and on paper.

Since no one really "owns" the land, it doesn't matter who says he owns it--man or society. It just depends on what type of society you have. Certain societies say people own it individual. Some say people own it collectively. Neither are right or wrong. It's nonsense alltogether.

I am not saying that the abstract concept of property ownership doesn't exist. It does---abstractly and subjectively. I own my piece of yard because the law says I can, not because I really own it. If Civilization and legal codes didn't exist, I wouldn't own my car anymore than a bluejay owns the land it's nest sits on. I am saying that that's all it is--an abstract concept that is culturally relative. In some places, ownership is seen as collective. In others, it's seen as individual. Neither is right; neither is wrong. It's naturally neutral. There's no objective justification either way.

We take land and occupy it, saying we own it, because we can, and no one else can stop us. That's all.

I always think it's funny that communists want to get rid of the State, since once the state is gone, all you have is a bunch of people running around claiming things extra-legally. One function of the State (but not the only one), is to regulate and delineate property ownership. If you take government away, then you are essentially returning to a State of Nature in which there is zero concept of legal theft and ownership.

I am merely showing that it's false to say that one culture's focus on individualist legal ownership of land is theft any more than Communal ownershp in another culture would be theft. No one actually owns the land. It's culturally defined and arbitrary.

WeThePeople1911

18th August 2005, 21:41

Why do the dead get to choose where their money is going? Why do they get to give it away? What are the arguments for inheritance?

This is very simple.

The right of property is the right of use and disposal of that which is earned. Just as a man has the right to use and dispose of his property during his lifetime, he also has the right to choose who shall be its recipient after death. No one else is entitled to make that choice.

Commie-Pinko

18th August 2005, 22:22

Well, if you redistribute the money from the wealthy after they die, you are giving it to people who didn't earn it. YOu are taking it from the relatives who didn't earn it and merely giving it to the others of society who didn't earn it. It's hypocritical. :D

Property isn't defined, however, only in terms of what you earn, rather in what you own. You can own a gift as much as you can own what you purchase from working at a job.

You don't own a birthday present any less than anything else you own, yet you didn't earn it. Someone gave it to you.

WeThePeople1911

18th August 2005, 23:32

Well, if you redistribute the money from the wealthy after they die, you are giving it to people who didn't earn it. YOu are taking it from the relatives who didn't earn it and merely giving it to the others of society who didn't earn it. It's hypocritical. biggrin.gif

No one is taking anything, the owner is simply choosing whom he wishes to give his property to after his death. This is a simple matter of the right to use and dispose of ones property, the recipient doesn't matter.

You're right however, property doesn't have to be "earned" once can also recieve it as a gift (one could also steal it, but then he wouldn't have a right to use it so such a case is outside of our topic of discussion).

Xvall

18th August 2005, 23:41

You don't own a birthday present any less than anything else you own, yet you didn't earn it. Someone gave it to you.

Keep in mind, that when we discuss inheritance we're generally talking about large fortunes. There is a substantial difference between recieving an X-Box and recieving the right to a multi-million dollar industry.

WeThePeople1911

18th August 2005, 23:52

Keep in mind, that when we discuss inheritance we're generally talking about large fortunes. There is a substantial difference between recieving an X-Box and recieving the right to a multi-million dollar industry.

A multi-millionare has just as much of a right to leave his property to whom he wants as a person with just $100.

The amount that is being left makes no difference whether a person has a right to leave it.

Xvall

18th August 2005, 23:57

Well, that's the case now. In a communistic or socialist society, that will all change.

WeThePeople1911

19th August 2005, 00:04

In a communist or socialist society, you will take away the rights of property owners to leave their children an inheritence.

And no, that is not the case now, the government steals much of an inheritence.

Commie-Pinko

19th August 2005, 00:21

Well, although I am not for huge cuts taken out of inheritence, I cannot see it as stealing, since theft is a legalistic term. SOmething is only stealing if it's illegal taking, and if taxation is legal, it's impossible for it to be theft, since no one owns anything outside of a state of civilization.

WeThePeople1911

19th August 2005, 00:24

And upon hearing that, I end my stake in this conversation.

Commie-Pinko

19th August 2005, 00:34

Okido. I am right though. Ownership is culturally relative and legalistic, just like Rights.

WeThePeople1911

19th August 2005, 00:40

I do disagree, but I will defend to the death your right to say that.

Commie-Pinko

19th August 2005, 00:45

Ok, well, we can discuss this further if you want. I would like to know what you think owership and rights are. It might be interesting. You think ownership is independent of civilization?

I don't think that actual ownership can exist outside of the law and civilization. I think I mentioned above, but none of the commies commented on it. In a State of Nature, there is no ownership. People simply come, stake a claim, and defend the territory. THat's different from actual ownership, because ownership is a legalistic concept.

To own something, it must be recognized by law. Rights are a human invention, and ownership/property rights are one such abstraction. They didn't exist prior to governments. If we were living in the wild, we would have no government to recognize and legally delineate who "owns" what property. Anyone can take anything for any reason in a State of Nature. THere are no laws, no rights, and no Enlightenment principles.

One of the function of our government is to protect our cultural values of individualism and rights. Property rights are one of those rights. We value individual ownership, because that's how we see the world, and that's how we want our government to operate.

Prior to civilization, a Human would take a cave, but he didn't "own it" any more than a bluejay would own a nest it makes on a tree.

The culture you are in defines how you view the world. In some cultures, the concept of "rights" does not exist, and further, property is not as solid as it is here. I am not saying either system is bad or good. I am just saying it's relative.

WeThePeople1911

19th August 2005, 00:53

http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=showname&ID=52

Visit that page, and listen to some of the property rights and ownership audio files.

Commie-Pinko

19th August 2005, 00:54

Ok. I will read it, but I would like to hear from you why you think the way you do, and how you justify it (perhaps metaphysically).

WeThePeople1911

19th August 2005, 03:09

However, there were, as he author admitted, several very successful communes. Needless to say, the mentality of the participants is what saved their communes.

I think if people want to live in communes, and they have the correct mindset, that's great.

Communes can work. But should just be free to enter them, or to leave them.

If two or more people want to get together and live in the same home, and place all of their incomes in a pot, then distribute their pot of money equally, I am okay with that, although generally, such a commune would trend towards disorder. I do suggest that contracts be made before entry, seeing how much conflict could arise with such an order.

Commie-Pinko

19th August 2005, 06:00

Now that I am listening to the site's audios you gave me, I would like to point out that much of what they are saying is blown way out of purportion. For instances, the Misis Institute firmly puts all the blame for the near collapse of the Jamestown settlement from 1608-11 on the hands of Communalism. That's untrue, and it's very dishonest. What the institute is doing is committing a false cause fallacy and protecting the hypothesis. By focusing ONLY on Communalism as they cause, they are essentially omitting a lot of information in their condemnation that would otherwise falsify their proposition. According to the speaker, Communalism it caused the famine, the death, and the nigh collapose. However, let us look at the myriad other factors that went into the downfall of Jamestown. In fact, if you look at the history of Jamestown, it's the poster-child for Murphey's Law.

1. Many of the settlers that came over from Europe were completely bewildered with how to survive in the middle of a foreign wilderness. Some were farmers, yes, and some were carpenters, but they were totally unprepared for dealing with the harsh environment present in the new world. Many were gentry and used to an easier life. In fact, many didn't even know what to plant, where to plant it, or what to grow!

2. The region chosen for Jamestown couldn't have been a worse place. It was in the middle of the wilderness with people who had no idea how to survive. To top that off, everyone decided to dig the settlement in a nice malarial swamp. Wow, that's top notch intelligence! Not only was the area already prone to disease, it was nigh useless for real agriculture. Even if they wanted to grow something, the settlement was early on hit by a huge drought, and nothing could grow anyway. So, because the area they settled on sucked for farming, farming itself sucked. Combine that with total incompetence and lack of wilderness knowhow, and you have a bunch of inept, starving Europeans.

3. Contrary to what the "misis institute" claims, disease was not caused by communalism, nor was starving. In fact, many of the pepole who came over on the three orginal ships were already dying, diseases, and poisoned. Many of them contracted saltwater sickness, dysentery, and high fevers. Combine this with the already malarial settlement location and you have a recepie for disaster. With so many people sick right from the getgo, farming and actual productivity is a bit difficult, especially when Winter's right on the horizon. In just turned out they didn't have enough healthy manpower, and they couldn't plant any crops in time, which lead to a winter hell in 1608.

4. To compound the problem above, did you know that nearly theentire settlement also burned down in 1608? Holy shit, could more possibly go wrong? Now compound total ineptness with preexisting diesase, lack of manpower, late crop starts, shitty land choice, with having to rebuild your town from scratch at the same time.

5. If you thought that was bad enough, think again, because as soon as the settlers got there, and several times through 1609, the settlers were attacked viciously by natives of the Powhatan tribe. In fact, several of their leaders were wounded and had to be sent back to England. Around 11 people were seriously wounded, and 3 were killed. As well, the Indians mercilessly killed off many of the livestock the settllers brought over. That must also be Communalism's fault, right? Now, combine this with the above problems, and you can begin to wonder why Jamestown didn't work.

6. Nonessential items were brought over to the new world on ships, and several of the ships never actually made it. In an attempt to boost the ailing manpower of the original expedition, the British decided to send 9 more ships, but only 7 made it. Amazingly, most of the tools, supplies, and foodstuffs to start the colony were on the ships that sank. Go figure?! So, in reality, the resupply endeavour actually made the situation worse--it backfired. The colony still had ALL the above problems, but now it had 400 new, useless individuals to feed; oh...and cats also. WTF mate? Great, so you bring a bunch of totally useless, resource consuming animals on a trip to a failing town in the middle of nowhere. That's genius--pure genius.

7. Many people at the Misis Institute like to attribute the starving time of 1609-10 to communism, but that's full of shit, as you can see above. In fact, even other peoples who were EXPERT farmers were having a hard time because this was an especially bad winter and crops didn't fare well. So, what we see here is that even a hardended tribe (The Algonquians, which knew it's way around work, the wilderness, and communalism, had a hard time surviving this winter. How the hell do you expect prissy, incompetent europeans to survive? It must be communalism's fault! Obviously!

FINALLY there was a light at the end of this horrible tunnel...Lord De Le Warr manged to get huge quantities of supplies to the colony...the ships didn't sink en route this time! Additionally, the drought ended, and people could actulaly plant some crops. However, just about this time, the colonists discovered the ONE thing that would actually grow well in Jamestown--the land was good for growing tobacco, and you can't eat that, so they had to trade it. THey had little choice. All of the above were major factors (in addition to privitization), that lead Jamestown out of the hell. However, you hear NONE of this on the Misis INstitute. ON that site Communalism = evil, and Capitalism saved the day. That's simply dishonest lying.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h533.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Colony
http://www.historywiz.com/exhibits/james-starvingtime.htm

I hate liars.

WeThePeople1911

19th August 2005, 06:22

Perhaps you are underestimating the detrmintal effects of socialist economic policy.

Commie-Pinko

19th August 2005, 07:03

No. I am not. You cannot honestly read the above and come to the conclusion that communalism was the problem. That's simply ingoring historical context. That's dishonest for someone who claims to be seeking truth. Many of the problems had nothing to do with communalism--at all. Communism is bad, but communalism wasn't the cause of Jamestown's near collapse.

I will agree with you that full socialism and even communism are poor economic systems, and on a large-scale national economy, it does lead to many problems, but Jamestown was very small in size and population, which oddly is where communalism works best--on a village/town level.

Another boon was the danger of starvation.

Communalism starts to fail when you get past 500 people, but jamestown was failing well before then.

1. It didn't cause the disease
2. It didn't cause all the people to be prissy and inept to begin with
3. It didn't cause the severe winter that struck all the other tribes hard as well
4. It didn't caues them to build on a malarial swamp
5. It didn't cause the drought
6. It didn't cause the indians to kill off most of their livestock
6. It didn't cause the indians to kill and wound many people
7. It didn't cause many of the original ships to sink (with supplies and food)

None of that was the problem, and in fact, the traditional ethic of Jamestown was work or die. According to many capitalists, that's a strength of capitalism. You don't work, you die. In Jamestown, you either worked or you got no food. Fear of death is supposedly a huge motivator..

The truth is, the entire "communalism killed jamestown" is a faerietale. I hope you don't actually believe that nonsense. After all, if you google "communalism" AND "TRIBES" you will see many, many tirbes (native, indian, and african), which have fared very well with a multitude of communal aspects.

WeThePeople1911

19th August 2005, 15:26

Well I can't argue with you on that.

Of course, I had never heard that audio file until you had brought it to my attention.

It wasn't my intent for you to hear that specific file either.

I would leading you towards to property rights and origins of ownership files.

You do make a good case, and my knowledge of the Jamestown colony is very limited, thus leaving me crippled and unable to defend Mises.

It is indeed, the Mises Institute whom you should be posting that to, not me,

Commie-Pinko

19th August 2005, 18:51

I did listen to some of the other files, and not all of them are bad. Just this and another one in particular. I fell off my chair laughing, because it seemed like something you would hear on a parody website. Private Property saves Jamestown! Communalism kills it! *next week on the national inquiror: Baby born with 3 heads*

A lot of the site is good, but some of their aticles go out of their way to be dishonest, like the one above. They ignore everything around the problem except for the one thing they hate--they focus on that. I liked what the Institute had to say on some of the other articles--The Communal Socialism clip. Overall, I thought it was pretty accurate---just not entirely honest.

I didn't get a chance to review the one on Rights yet, but I agree with the concept of rights, so they aren't going to have to convince me of that. I think they ought to be used, I just think they ought to be used through a different justification.

If they are going to try to tell me they should exist simply because are inate, then I won't agree.

WeThePeople1911

19th August 2005, 21:14

It is of historical fact that the First Thanksgiving was celebrated, in part, because of the new economic system that they found; Free-enterprise.

Commie-Pinko

19th August 2005, 22:57

You are right to an extent. THe privitization came largely in the form of ending Corn Collectivism, and if you read the historical documents, Bradford expresses that the specific TYPE of collectivism used was not successful, but that doesn't mean all forms of it are unsuccessful, and that doesn't mean he got rid of all elements of it. I can see from other documents by Bradford that some were kept.

There are some things I also cannot comprehend about the history of Plymouth. Some things don't make sense. They juxtapose collectivism and starvation/disease, but that's not exactly honest. Then they show that the colony did much better after William Bradford initialized private property. They said the "harvest was bountiful and no more famines ensued." However, if you read the history, it's almost common sense that this is true, but not only because of the privitization.

For example:

The Mayflower reached the soil of Cape Cod, Mass. on December 11, 1620 - at the onset of winter with no shelters of any kind awaiting them!

This means they got here in the dead of fucking winter, with no food, little clothing, no survival skills, and no shelters. Most of the people caught diseaes from riding on a ship for months. In fact, one of the most common diseases was Scurvey. Scurvey was aggrivated by another affliction which Bradford called "general sickness," which was really Pneumonia---which, of course, they caught from being in Cape Code in the middle of winter with little food and no shelter.

Further, when the pilgrimes landed in the dead of freaking winter, what do economists expect to happen? Did they expect them to bounce out of their ships, live on the ground, and then automatically harvest a bunch of food? When the pilgrims landed, they had no farms, no crops, no houses, and no nothing!

The only thing they had was some food they confiscated from communal indian lands, because the Indians had some already cultivated fields. Since the Pilgrims got there very late, winter struck, and they didn't have enough food, so of course the winter was very harsh and starvation proceded to whipe them out. . I mean, come on..the Pilgrims just started building the town on Christmas day.

http://www.saburchill.com/history/chapters/empires/0009.html

To me it seems as if economic historians are doing a post-hoc, ergo propter hoc. Yes, extreme collectivism is bad, but that doesn't seem to be the whole story at all.
Even though after the first deadly winter the harvest was much better than the previous harvest, it seems obvious and commonsensical; The previous harvest which lead to the horrible winter was bad because they couldn't plant and didn't know how to plant, and had no where to live.

The major success for the Pilgrims also came after members of the Wampanoag tribe helped them by showing them where to hunt, where gather fruits, what types of fruits to eat, how to plant (and what to plant), and where to plant. The settlers who came over on the ships had very few skills for living in the New World. All of the obove seems completely ignored by economic historians, who paint a picture in which

1. Collectivism killed the town, Free enterpirse fixed it.

But in painting this picture, significant elements of the story are frequently left out.
Why do the economic historians totally leave this out of their analysis?

LamarLatrell

28th August 2005, 15:34

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 8 2005, 03:32 AM
*Note: for the purposes of this thread, please ignore other glaring problems with capitalism. Please assume (not matter how hard) that capitalism is the best system possible. I don't care if you don't think that.*

Liberals and libertarians go on about how people should have the right to use their money however they want. They encourage charities, but discourage taxation (though nearly all want some level).

They go on about the right to choose. But they support inheritance. This seems to me one of the major flaws with the capitalist system.

Why do the dead get to choose where their money is going? Why do they get to give it away? What are the arguments for inheritance?
It's not the dead deciding anything. The person makes a choice when living by writing a will. And if there is no will, the default action is the estate goes to the children and through probate. Cut and dry. If somebody works his whole life and amasses something and it is his wish to have it go to his children, then it is the birthright of that child and the execution of the wishes of the deceased.

The parent earned the money, he has every right to decide what happens to it once he's dead.

There are estate taxes and lawyers must be paid when dealing with probate and wills so some other get a piece of the pie.

This is one form of incentive for people to work hard and achieve in their lilfetime. If you have a family, you want them to be provided for.

I seriously doubt anybody here, professed communist or not, would turn down any money inherited from a dead relative.

apathy maybe

13th September 2005, 05:51

What you are saying M. Banned Member, is that once someone dies they still have rights? I am not saying that they should not be able to give everything away while they are still alive (for I am assuming for the purpose of this thread that capitalism is the best system), but once they are dead?

That is like saying that once I am dead I can still vote for my favourite candidate. So long as I state in my will that I want my vote to goto the Libertarian party then it should do so for the next 200 years. (On a sidenote I know this happens sometimes, dead people voting I mean.)

The whole capitalist system is generally defended by people saying that people work hard to gain rewards, and those who are poor obviously don't work, and those who are rich deserve what they have earned (or rather what they have).

But often the children (or cats, or goldfish, etc.) of a person who has worked hard, has not done a days work in their life. Yet, they gain their parent's (if the parent wants it so) hard work. So then they don't do any work.

If you want people to work hard, surely you should be trying to stop inheritance, so that the children of wealthy people will have to work for a living rather then simply living off the wealth of their parents.

And whatever, to your last point. It doesn't argue for inheritance.

apathy maybe

9th October 2005, 06:47

Bumpity Bumpity Bump.

I respectfully ask the input of some more restricted members. Preferably of the 'anarcho-capitalist' or 'libertarian' types.

Can inheritance be justified from a natural rights tradition?

Freedom Works

9th October 2005, 06:52

Ever heard of the right to contract and the right to associate?

CrazyModerate

9th October 2005, 07:09

Freedom would work if Bill Gates weren't billions of times freer than your average steel mill worker.

apathy maybe

9th October 2005, 07:21

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 9 2005, 04:33 PM
Ever heard of the right to contract and the right to associate?
I fail to see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

The topic is inheritance. The 'right' to contract and the 'right' to associate do not come into it. Do you actually have any arguements against inheritance?

Freedom Works

9th October 2005, 07:35

Freedom would work if Bill Gates weren't billions of times freer than your average steel mill worker.
What a great argument.

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic at hand.
Then you missed my point completely.

apathy maybe

9th October 2005, 07:41

If I missed your point, can please explain it again. With more then one line preferabbly.If I missed your point, can please explain it again. With more then one line preferably. Layout point by point what the 'rights' to contract and associate have with inheritance.

For example (just guessing at your argument), a will is a contract, therefore inheritance is covered by the right to contract.

Publius

9th October 2005, 18:26

Why do the dead get to choose where their money is going?

Dead people don't decide, living ones do. These living people denote the time of their death as the time of transferance of the funds.

Why do they get to give it away?

Because it's theirs.

What are the arguments for inheritance?

Your money, your decision.

apathy maybe

2nd November 2005, 06:26

To resurrect a dead thread (and hope for more answers).

OK Publius, I assume you oppose Monarchy. But, can you see the similarities between monarchy and inheritance?

A person rules simply because they are the child of the previous ruler (or brother or whatever, but assume child).
A person gets lots of stuff simply because they are the child of the person who previously owned that stuff (ignoring that the stuff could have gone to lots of places).

Lets create a hypothetical, but perfectly valid, scenario in an ‘anarcho-capitalist’ system.
A person works hard and gets lots of cash (well, easily transferable goods which do for cash) and other stuff. This person dies and leaves it all to their only child.

The only child uses this stuff to hire workers and sits around and does not do anything. Lots more money is made for the person. The child dies and leaves it all to their only child.

A few generations later, you have the situation where one family owns and the land all around. They have set up a hierarchical structure of society on that land. Children born onto that land have to sign a contract giving away all their rights as soon as they turn 18. If they don’t they are taken to the wilderness and not allowed back into the society (and die quite rapidly, say from dehydration). And for good measure chuck in that all this is good and natural because God said so.

Do you Publius support this? It arose from a natural state. Legitimately, no one was forced to sign up to work for the monarch. No one is forced to sign away their rights.

It could even have happened in a minimal state system. But now the minimal state is the monarchy (and it just got bigger).

(Oh, and once you are dead, you don't can't make any decisions. Plus you don't care where your crap goes. Does anyone support the idea that a person can write to burn all their possesions when they die?)

Tungsten

2nd November 2005, 15:25

apathy maybe

OK Publius, I assume you oppose Monarchy. But, can you see the similarities between monarchy and inheritance?

I've seen this argument before. One involves the inheritance of property. The other involves the inheritance of political power. These are two completely different concepts.

Lets create a hypothetical, but perfectly valid, scenario in an ‘anarcho-capitalist’ system.

The problem is that it isn't a valid scenario. It belongs with the "what of one person owned all the food" scenario; it is absurdly far-fetched. Sure, there's nothing stopping you from signing a contract to give all of your inheritance to an idiot, but there is nothing stopping you from signing a contract to allow someone to hold a blowtorch to you nuts every Friday afternoon either. Who's going to sign up for those? On another note: you can't sign away your children's inheritance because you don't 'own' them as such and only adults are allowed to sign contracts, so any contract signed by a child would be invalid. Plus you should lose full control over your children when they turn 18 anyway, so their property would be off-limits.

A few generations later, you have the situation where one family owns and the land all around.

How did they manage that? Surely the only way they could have acquired all land is by forceful siezure. I find it unlikely that everyone would give away everything they owned.

2nd November 2005, 16:57

I've seen this argument before. One involves the inheritance of property. The other involves the inheritance of political power. These are two completely different concepts.

In a society with social relations based on commodities for exchange, property is power.

Tungsten

2nd November 2005, 19:09

Lazar

In a society with social relations based on commodities for exchange, property is power.

You haven't thought this through properly. Property might grant you power over things, but it doesn't grant you power over people. You may be a billionaire, but you may only exchange what other people are willing to buy and sell. It's the political power that causes the problems, which is the reason I want it kept to a minimum.

black magick hustla

2nd November 2005, 19:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 07:09 PM
Lazar

In a society with social relations based on commodities for exchange, property is power.

You haven't thought this through properly. Property might grant you power over things, but it doesn't grant you power over people. You may be a billionaire, but you may only exchange what other people are willing to buy and sell. It's the political power that causes the problems, which is the reason I want it kept to a minimum.
I don't think you understand his statement.

If you are a billionaire, you could simply buy some mercenaries willing to kill to protect your interests. You should read about SOmalia right now, it is very "anarcho capitalist" and in fact, rich buisnessmen DO buy mercenaries to protect their interests.

Being a billinaire also gives you power OVER THE WILL of the people. Do you think people would be so worried on buying shitty EXPENSIVE CARS if it wasn't for the fact that people are bombared in everyday life with shiny signs about how EXPENSIVE CARS WOULD FULFILL YOUR WILDEST DREAMS?

You do realize that most of the relatively useless gadgets wouldn't be bought iif those ipods weren't bombarded THROUGH SPECTACLES everyday?

Freedom Works

2nd November 2005, 20:01

only adults are allowed to sign contracts, so any contract signed by a child would be invalid. Plus you should lose full control over your children when they turn 18 anyway, so their property would be off-limits.
A child ceases to be a child when they decide they are an adult. That is why no line can be drawn: people have to decide for themselves. Any age decided upon by a State will be arbitrary, and thus invalid.

LSD

2nd November 2005, 20:10

A child ceases to be a child when they decide they are an adult. That is why no line can be drawn

So if a 4 year old "decides" that she is an adult, by your standard ...she is?

She should be able to enter into contracts, purchase firearms, consume alchohol and tobacco, have sex with anyone she "wants" to, etc...?

Wow, I can't possible imagine what could go wrong in that scenario. :rolleyes:

Freedom Works

2nd November 2005, 20:21

So if a 4 year old "decides" that she is an adult, by your standard ...she is?
I wouldn't consider an adult, but others may. That's why any line drawn is oppressive: some may wish to trade, and the 4 year old has a right to trade, so it is wrong to physically disallow the trade.

Wow, I can't possible imagine what could go wrong in that scenario.
Compared to the one where a 17 year & 364 day old is not considered an adult? Can't imagine anything wrong with THAT scenario, oh wait, except oppression.

Publius

2nd November 2005, 20:23

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 2 2005, 06:26 AM

OK Publius, I assume you oppose Monarchy. But, can you see the similarities between monarchy and inheritance?

No.

THe owner of the money has absolute freedom to do with it what he will, including give it to his son.

In a monarchy, the king doesn't choose who gets to be king next.

Futhermore, property, and a social position, are two very different things to be handed down.

But I do see your point.

A person rules simply because they are the child of the previous ruler (or brother or whatever, but assume child).
A person gets lots of stuff simply because they are the child of the person who previously owned that stuff (ignoring that the stuff could have gone to lots of places).

I agree, this can be unfair.

But is it more unfair than say, that parent passing down his superiour genes?

'Fairness' is very subjective as well.

Lets create a hypothetical, but perfectly valid, scenario in an ‘anarcho-capitalist’ system.
A person works hard and gets lots of cash (well, easily transferable goods which do for cash) and other stuff. This person dies and leaves it all to their only child.

The only child uses this stuff to hire workers and sits around and does not do anything. Lots more money is made for the person. The child dies and leaves it all to their only child. [/quote]

Bequeathing such as this seems logical, until you realize the only way to make money is to have someone else give it to you.

How is they continuing to make more money?

A few generations later, you have the situation where one family owns and the land all around.

Only if the land is sold to them.

They have set up a hierarchical structure of society on that land. Children born onto that land have to sign a contract giving away all their rights as soon as they turn 18.

Who would do that?

If they don’t they are taken to the wilderness and not allowed back into the society (and die quite rapidly, say from dehydration).

Or, to be more accurate, move somewhere else, where they do have rights, leaving this place devoid of any workers, causing to collapse, and impoverishing the former owner.

Who would sign such a stupid contract? What person would give away their own rights? Who would allow themselves to be ruled like this, when they had the chance to leave?

Governments can do this sort of thing, corporations can't.

And for good measure chuck in that all this is good and natural because God said so.

Who cares about God? Not I.

Do you Publius support this? It arose from a natural state. Legitimately, no one was forced to sign up to work for the monarch. No one is forced to sign away their rights.

Do I 'support' it? No more than I 'support' other imaginary realms such as Middle Earth or Narnia.

No, I don't 'support' it, because it cannot logically be supported.

It could even have happened in a minimal state system. But now the minimal state is the monarchy (and it just got bigger).

No, it can't happen, period.

Would you sign such a stupid contract? WOuld anyone? How would these people amass enough money to buy everyone? Will it into existence?

"Sign this contract or you won't get to stay in my prison!"?

How stupid is that?

(Oh, and once you are dead, you don't can't make any decisions. Plus you don't care where your crap goes. Does anyone support the idea that a person can write to burn all their possesions when they die?)

Yes. Kafka did (But of course, his wish wasn't granted).

Publius

2nd November 2005, 20:25

In a society with social relations based on commodities for exchange, property is power.

Is it now?

Isn't the creation of new property then a good way to dissolve power?

black magick hustla

2nd November 2005, 20:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:25 PM

In a society with social relations based on commodities for exchange, property is power.

Is it now?

Isn't the creation of new property then a good way to dissolve power?
In order for the creation of new property be significant, you need to already have property. ;)

2nd November 2005, 20:30

Is it now?

Isn't the creation of new property then a good way to dissolve power?

No. The creation of new property consolidates power. The abolition of property (I hope you realize we are talking about private property here) is the only way to dissolve power.

Tungsten

3rd November 2005, 15:36

Marmot

If you are a billionaire, you could simply buy some mercenaries willing to kill to protect your interests.

But arguably, if I hit a thief over the head with a baseball bat and kill him, I'm also killing to protect my interests. Who could blame me for that?

Being a billinaire also gives you power OVER THE WILL of the people.

I'm not so sure. No billionare has altered my will to do anthing.

Do you think people would be so worried on buying shitty EXPENSIVE CARS if it wasn't for the fact that people are bombared in everyday life with shiny signs about how EXPENSIVE CARS WOULD FULFILL YOUR WILDEST DREAMS?

Do you beleive that people are mindless computers with no will of their own, who purchase things in a hypnotized "Look....expensive car....must....buy...." sort of way? If not, you could have fooled me. I trust you don't see yourself as one of these people.

A fool can put on his coat better than the wisest man can put it on for him and it's better people be left to chose themselves.

You do realize that most of the relatively useless gadgets wouldn't be bought iif those ipods weren't bombarded THROUGH SPECTACLES everyday?

Am I to assume that in order to protect us from this, you will be installing a 'ministry of virtue' like that one the taliban set up in afghanistan that will tell everyone what they may or may not buy in case someone buys something 'useless'? You may not admit to being a supporter of dictatorship, but hints of it are definitely there.

In order for the creation of new property be significant, you need to already have property.

Hold on a minute, doesn't that mean in order for someone to purchase a house, they must first own a house? That doesn't make much sense.

Freedom Works

A child ceases to be a child when they decide they are an adult. That is why no line can be drawn: people have to decide for themselves. Any age decided upon by a State will be arbitrary, and thus invalid.

That is not correct. Children's minds are not fully developed until they are at least 18. There might be the exceptional case, but that is generally the rule.

Freedom Works

3rd November 2005, 19:44

Children's minds are not fully developed until they are at least 18. There might be the exceptional case, but that is generally the rule.
Could you please explain how 18 is not completely arbitrary?

Publius

3rd November 2005, 20:41

In order for the creation of new property be significant, you need to already have property. ;)

So to follow logically, since there was a time when none had property, and to get property, you must have property, none has property?

You might want to re-state that.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying as well.

Ownership of say, 10 steel mills is significant only if there are no other alternatives.

If you own 10 steel mills out of 20, you are in a good position, but 10 out of 1000, not so much.

The creation of property makes existing property worth less, and sometimes worthless.

Even if you own 10 steel mills, a new material could be synthesized that makes steel useless.

Creation of property is the only way to balance property ownership, meaningfully.

Freedom Works

3rd November 2005, 20:47

Ownership of say, 10 steel mills is significant only if there are no other alternatives.

If you own 10 steel mills out of 20, you are in a good position, but 10 out of 1000, not so much.
One must also remember that in a free society nothing is stopping others from creating more wealth, except themselves. If I own 10 out of 20 steel mills, someone can come along and make another.

drain.you

3rd November 2005, 22:07

In my opinion, inheritance of land, business and wealth sucks.
It just serves capitalism, keeping the rich, rich and the poor, poor.
The only kind of inheritance that should be allowed is personal things, like inherting your grandfather's favourtie hat or you're dad's diaries and such.

Freedom Works

3rd November 2005, 22:43

It just serves capitalism, keeping the rich, rich and the poor, poor.
How does the State confiscating wealth help the poor? All it will inevitably do is oppress.

The only kind of inheritance that should be allowed is personal things,
What about your dad's trusty hammer, that's a means of production is it not? What do you think of him trading that?

black magick hustla

3rd November 2005, 23:49

So to follow logically, since there was a time when none had property, and to get property, you must have property, none has property?

Depends on what you define as property.

In some point at history, people started to submit at an elite. This people could have become property and this property was used to create significant amounts of property.

Hell you don't see a common proletarian mass producing a significant product for his own benefit, don't you?

Sure, the creation of new property can somehow superseed past ones. However, who generally creates this property? Proletarians? Bourgeosie?

But arguably, if I hit a thief over the head with a baseball bat and kill him, I'm also killing to protect my interests. Who could blame me for that?
Oh, hell yeah, you would be killing for your own interests-

However there are some issues you haven't pointed out.

1) Material conditions: I don't see many middle class workers killing for their own interest, while corporation cogglomerates are pretty much known for not giving a shit for anything.

2) Power: If you somehow become a greedy psychopath you won't have much power to opress other people for your interests.

I'm not so sure. No billionare has altered my will to do anthing.

I am pretty sure they had, they have altered me also.

Do you really think that getting bombarded every day with explicit and implicit messages of useless trash doesn't affects you anyhow?

I think you are taking a very arrogant perspective.

Do you beleive that people are mindless computers with no will of their own, who purchase things in a hypnotized "Look....expensive car....must....buy...." sort of way? If not, you could have fooled me. I trust you don't see yourself as one of these people.

A fool can put on his coat better than the wisest man can put it on for him and it's better people be left to chose themselves.

Oh, i believe there is alot of creativity that is always surpressed by the current capitalist machines.

However, as I said before, do you think that a "SUPER ULTRA NICECAR EVEN IF I DONT LIKE RACING" would attract people that much if the current mediums of comunication would be more "primitive"?

Do you think many of the useless gadgets we have today would be THAT attractive?

The people of course need to chose for themselves. That is why I am a supporter of worker councils where everyone can practice direct democracy. The people need to make history themselves instead of just being inserted into a history controlled by upper classes.

Am I to assume that in order to protect us from this, you will be installing a 'ministry of virtue' like that one the taliban set up in afghanistan that will tell everyone what they may or may not buy in case someone buys something 'useless'? You may not admit to being a supporter of dictatorship, but hints of it are definitely there.

You are not near, sorry.

I don't believe in such useless things as "morality". That is for christians and hypocritical capitalists.

However, I do believe the people should choose their destiny. They shouldn't be forced by the current conditions of the capitalist machine, they shouldn't be tamed as souless specialized commodities.

I believe that the workers should take the means of production and practice direct democracy.

drain.you

4th November 2005, 08:42

How does the State confiscating wealth help the poor? All it will inevitably do is oppress.

If you are rich and own a massive industry, die and your son inherits it then your son will be rich. This keeps wealth within the family and hence keeps descendants of the rich, rich.
If you own nothing, die and pass down nothing then you're family will remain poor.

This happens in every capitalist society look at America,China, Africa, etc to see this.
Capitalism allows inherited wealth, thats like inheriting the position of 'Baron', 'Duke' or 'Lord'. Its stupid and needs to be abolished.

What about your dad's trusty hammer, that's a means of production is it not? What do you think of him trading that?
A hammer allows you to earn money, yes but its nothing compared to inheriting a mighty industry/company. Give the working class a break :P

Freedom Works

4th November 2005, 11:27

If you are rich and own a massive industry, die and your son inherits it then your son will be rich.
Well, let's look at a clearer image of this. What does he do after he has the industry? He can sell it, or try to run it and make a profit. If he sells it, so what? He is entitled to it, he was GIVEN it by his father. Stealing it from him is absurd. If he trys to make a profit, he is going to have to serve the consumer. That's how capitalism works, the consumer has the ultimate power.

This keeps wealth within the family and hence keeps descendants of the rich, rich.
Yes, but WHY is that bad?

The only way to believe it is bad is if you have the fallacious idea that wealth is limited; that there is a set amount of useful things in the world. The problem with this view is that it's wrong, as one thing becomes scarce, humans will come up with an alternative. Such is the beauty of capitalism and human ingenuity.

If you own nothing, die and pass down nothing then you're family will remain poor.
What if you pass down your spirit to work hard and be an entrepreneur?

Capitalism allows inherited wealth
Freedom allows it, capitalism progresses with it.

Its stupid and needs to be abolished.
You cannot abolish a freedom, you can only oppress it.

Tungsten

4th November 2005, 14:42

Freedom Works

Could you please explain how 18 is not completely arbitrary?

Children's minds are not fully developed until they are at least 18.

I know most psychology is quackery, but not in this case. You should know that a conceptual mentality is not fully developed until people reach this age. That is when you get your rights proper.

Marmot

1) Material conditions: I don't see many middle class workers killing for their own interest, while corporation cogglomerates are pretty much known for not giving a shit for anything.

I don't think 'not giving a shit' counts as killing anyone. Even if it did, it's still illegal.

2) Power: If you somehow become a greedy psychopath you won't have much power to opress other people for your interests.

Surely that depends on the number of psychopaths.

Do you really think that getting bombarded every day with explicit and implicit messages of useless trash doesn't affects you anyhow?

I think you are taking a very arrogant perspective.

Can we cut out the black helicopter silliness please? There are no such things as subliminal messages, and contrary to popular belief, brainwashing not possible. Even kids can see through advertizing.

Oh, i believe there is alot of creativity that is always surpressed by the current capitalist machines.

What do you mean by creativity and how is it being supressed?

I don't believe in such useless things as "morality".

That would seem obvious.

However, I do believe the people should choose their destiny. They shouldn't be forced by the current conditions of the capitalist machine, they shouldn't be tamed as souless specialized commodities.

Yet you seem okay with worker's councils directing people's lives for them.

I believe that the workers should take the means of production and practice direct democracy.

There has been much posted on this board already about the problems with applying direct democracy to individual's lives. It all comes down to someone else making descisions for you, which is dictatorship with a few fancy trimmings.

drain.you

4th November 2005, 16:52

Jeez, no wonder you are banned.

Yes, but WHY is that bad?
Why is capitalism bad? Because everyone should be equal and capitalism does not allow people to be equal. Capitalism divides people. Wealth divides people.
People should be equal and therefore capitalism and wealth should be abolished to create this equality.

What if you pass down your spirit to work hard and be an entrepreneur?
Spirit to work? Thats called brainwashing, socialisation, tools of the capitalist to supress the people and create surplus amounts of people who are able to work for them.

black magick hustla

4th November 2005, 22:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:42 PM

I don't think 'not giving a shit' counts as killing anyone. Even if it did, it's still illegal.

Oh, so you are telling me is ok for GAP to get their shirts done with child labor. :o

I don't think they care to much about that!

Surely that depends on the number of psychopaths.

I think you took my statement to literally. ;)

Can we cut out the black helicopter silliness please? There are no such things as subliminal messages, and contrary to popular belief, brainwashing not possible. Even kids can see through advertizing.

It isn't about subliminal messages.

Before, we were raised to be christian, and to think christianity is "correct".

You didn't see many atheists before, didn't you?

It is the same type of shit except with capitalism!

What do you mean by creativity and how is it being supressed?

Oh c'mon.

Being inserted as a specialization into society, doing a boring job for countless of hours doesn't enriches your creativity at all.

I don't think staying inside a cubicle, or pressing a button in a factory encourages creativty at all!

Yet you seem okay with worker's councils directing people's lives for them.

If I have equal say in such councils, why not?

It is much better than a minority having control over me!

There has been much posted on this board already about the problems with applying direct democracy to individual's lives. It all comes down to someone else making descisions for you, which is dictatorship with a few fancy trimmings.

More speculations. :)

Prove it.

Tungsten

4th November 2005, 23:35

drain.you

Why is capitalism bad? Because everyone should be equal and capitalism does not allow people to be equal.
What is it about equality that makes achieving it such an imperative? Why does capitalism not allow people to be equal?

Capitalism divides people. Wealth divides people.
Assuming it's true, why is this a bad thing?

People should be equal and therefore capitalism and wealth should be abolished to create this equality.
Again, why? Reading through this post, I'm not impressed with the sophistication or the depth of your arguments. You didn't actually provide an answer to the question beyond 'people should be equal because they should'.

Spirit to work? Thats called brainwashing, socialisation, tools of the capitalist to supress the people and create surplus amounts of people who are able to work for them.

Oh dear. Another member of the 'black helicopter' club.

Marmot

Oh, so you are telling me is ok for GAP to get their shirts done with child labor.

I don't think they care to much about that!

I don't see what this has to do with killing people.

If I have equal say in such councils, why not?

You don't get an equal say because you're just one vote amongst many and you have to do whatever the council decides (by voting) you should do. If you don't like it, as an individual you have little power to do anything about it. Woudn't it be better if you made the decision, rather than other people?

It is much better than a minority having control over me!

I don't think the results are any different in practice.

More speculations.

Prove it.

You make it sound as if beuracracy (and that is what it is) is a radical new idea that has never been tried.

drain.you

5th November 2005, 01:20

Why does capitalism not allow people to be equal?
Capitalism doesn't allow people to equal. Not everyone can succeed and not everyone will fail. Therefore not everyone is equal.
Example: Bill Gates has worked the system, the beggar on the corner was screwed over by the system. They are not equal. Capitalism has prevented them from being equal. Do you think the beggar would not like to be rich if he could?

Capitalism divides people. Wealth divides people.

Assuming it's true, why is this a bad thing?
Because I believe people should be equal, in equality there are no divisions, everyone has the same wealth, the same rights, etc. Capitalism does not create a society where everyone has the same standard of living, it doesn't take a genius to see this, I live in a small town and I can see that I live in council housing (cheap crap housing built by state) and that other housing exists, such as the nice Bellway homes (luxury homes created by private companies).

You didn't actually provide an answer to the question beyond 'people should be equal because they should'.
I'm sorry, let me go over this. I am a human, you are a human, we may look different, act different, talk different,etc however we are both humans. Humans need certain things, a place to live, food, education,etc.
Why should one human be forced to sleep on the concrete floor of an alleyway and another in a comfy bed?
Why should one human be forced to starve and the other one have a large meal?
We have the same needs, we are the same, we should be treated the same. As equals.
You may argue that meritocracy works. I argue it doesn't. If it did then poverty wouldn't exist because PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BE POOR. They don't actively decide to fail in society, society actively decides to reject them.
If meritocracy exists then people would have a choice, to be successful or to fail. Why would anyone choose to fail? Why would a parent decide to fail and let their child die on the streets?

Oh dear. Another member of the 'black helicopter' club.
lol. Paranoid as I may be, I don't think so.
Tell me, how do people learn the skills to work? How do they learn how to behave? We learn it through socialisation. We are taught the values and norms of society in the family. In education we are prepared for work. We are taught to 'not answer back', 'to do as we are told', 'to work hard'. And why? Because these rules benefit the capitalist system. Because if we accept these rules, then we can be used by the system. Why do we get qualifications? So the capitalists can decide who is best for the job. And what jobs don't need qualifications? The worst ones. The people who cannot succeed in the education system must have the worst jobs. They must compete for these jobs. Capitalist society creates a surplus amount of labour, so that they can pick and choose between available workers.

black magick hustla

5th November 2005, 04:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:35 PM
drain.you

Why is capitalism bad? Because everyone should be equal and capitalism does not allow people to be equal.
What is it about equality that makes achieving it such an imperative? Why does capitalism not allow people to be equal?

Capitalism divides people. Wealth divides people.
Assuming it's true, why is this a bad thing?

People should be equal and therefore capitalism and wealth should be abolished to create this equality.
Again, why? Reading through this post, I'm not impressed with the sophistication or the depth of your arguments. You didn't actually provide an answer to the question beyond 'people should be equal because they should'.

Spirit to work? Thats called brainwashing, socialisation, tools of the capitalist to supress the people and create surplus amounts of people who are able to work for them.

Oh dear. Another member of the 'black helicopter' club.

Marmot

Oh, so you are telling me is ok for GAP to get their shirts done with child labor.

I don't think they care to much about that!

If I have equal say in such councils, why not?

It is much better than a minority having control over me!

More speculations.

Prove it.

I don't see what this has to do with killing people.

Christ, are you serious?

My point wasn't that they ONLY KILL PEOPLE, my point was that capitalists don't care for the effects their actions have. Killing, child labor, all of them can be output of big capitalists's obvious class interests.

You don't get an equal say because you're just one vote amongst many and you have to do whatever the council decides (by voting) you should do. If you don't like it, as an individual you have little power to do anything about it. Woudn't it be better if you made the decision, rather than other people?

I prefer that than the obviously system for a minority. Actually, a more democratic state offers opportunity for a dialectical society were contradictions are met with the votes of many people, creating new synthesis. However, in a system were the resources are controlled by an elite class, this can't happen.

In today's capitalist system, there is of course contradictions and class antagonism. However, the resources and means of change are controlled by the elite class. The bourgeoisie, with their class interests attached to them, will never let a dialectical society to happen.

This obviously prevents any real change without the need of revolution.

I don't think the results are any different in practice.
It has been already practiced.

You make it sound as if beuracracy (and that is what it is) is a radical new idea that has never been tried.

No, it isn't.

I think it is time to dig up the history books big guy!

Tungsten

5th November 2005, 15:07

drain.you

Example: Bill Gates has worked the system, the beggar on the corner was screwed over by the system.

Bill Gates sells computers and software, the beggar on the corner just sits there. The system did nothing other than allow them to go about their busniess.

They are not equal.

Nor should they be.

Capitalism has prevented them from being equal. Do you think the beggar would not like to be rich if he could?

Wanting to be rich and actually going about getting rich are two different things, as the scenario you describe proves. You'd might as well just sit at home watching TV all day and wonder why society isn't rewarding you for it.

Because I believe people should be equal, in equality there are no divisions, everyone has the same wealth, the same rights, etc. Capitalism does not create a society where everyone has the same standard of living, it doesn't take a genius to see this, I live in a small town and I can see that I live in council housing (cheap crap housing built by state) and that other housing exists, such as the nice Bellway homes (luxury homes created by private companies).

I think the only reason that situation has come about is because everyone doesn't have equal ablities, productivness, talent or ambitions. I rekon you'd happily have everyone living in squalor- providing that we were all in that same state.

I'm sorry, let me go over this. I am a human, you are a human, we may look different, act different, talk different,etc however we are both humans. Humans need certain things, a place to live, food, education,etc.
Why should one human be forced to sleep on the concrete floor of an alleyway and another in a comfy bed?

Because providng the former with a comfy bed would mean forcing someone to provide it, probably the latter person. I thought that the general consensus here was that exploitation was morally wrong and therefore something to be abolished. I don't think you appreciate what this equality actually entails in practice.

Why should one human be forced to starve and the other one have a large meal?

The same applies here as with the bed scenario.

We have the same needs, we are the same, we should be treated the same. As equals.

All equal regardless of merit or work? That might appeal to those who wish to work little or not at all, as they will be the only ones who benefit from it.

You may argue that meritocracy works. I argue it doesn't. If it did then poverty wouldn't exist because PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BE POOR.

Again, not wishing to be poor and actually doing something about it are two different things.

They don't actively decide to fail in society, society actively decides to reject them.

They fail on the virtue that they don't do anything about it. Society, as of late, now encourages and rewards failure through extensive benefit systems.

If meritocracy exists then people would have a choice, to be successful or to fail.

They do have a choice, but that choice often requires work and some people do not wish to do that. I know many such people.

Why would anyone choose to fail? Why would a parent decide to fail and let their child die on the streets?

Laziness? Incompetence? Some parents couldn't care less.

Because if we accept these rules, then we can be used by the system.

Capitalism is only people buying, selling and trading goods and labour. Those who wish to subvert this system do so out of a desire to rule these people or live off them without their consent. You don't admit it, but this desire is definitiely there.

drain.you

5th November 2005, 15:36

Bill Gates sells computers and software, the beggar on the corner just sits there. The system did nothing other than allow them to go about their busniess.

And the beggar has not tried to get a job? The beggar has not tried to make a living? The beggar wants to be poor? Don't be so ridiculous. Bill Gates got lucky, he found a product that society wants, suprisingly enough, not everyone manages to do this.

Nor should they be.
Why should they not be equal? I though you told me off for not explaining my answers.

Wanting to be rich and actually going about getting rich are two different things, as the scenario you describe proves. You'd might as well just sit at home watching TV all day and wonder why society isn't rewarding you for it.
What if you can't get a job(ie: you are trying to get one but cannot)? What if you are crippled? What if you have became homeless due to an earthquake or hurricane? I don't think that any of them could be said to be the person's fault.

I think the only reason that situation has come about is because everyone doesn't have equal ablities, productivness, talent or ambitions. I rekon you'd happily have everyone living in squalor- providing that we were all in that same state.
Everyone has different abilities and skills but everyone has the same needs

Because providng the former with a comfy bed would mean forcing someone to provide it, probably the latter person. I thought that the general consensus here was that exploitation was morally wrong and therefore something to be abolished. I don't think you appreciate what this equality actually entails in practice.
I see your point, someone will have to pay for this bed. However in an equal society, everyone will be paying for each other's existence anyway. Why should any be allowed to have a surplus of anything while another person has none? Because they 'earned it' how can you earn the right to own anything? People have the same needs, if I need food/comfort then the next person does, if I have enough money for a food/bed then the next person should. These things are rights, not privleges to be bought.

All equal regardless of merit or work? That might appeal to those who wish to work little or not at all, as they will be the only ones who benefit from it.
The basics needs should be provided for everyone because everyone needs them, because every person is a person and every person has needs. If someone decides not to work then they should still be able to live! But please remember, that in capitalism people do not get the worth of their labour and in fact people with the most money in capitalist society do the least work! (store managers doesnt do more work than the sales assitant, footballers dont do more work than the majority of fans,etc)

Again, not wishing to be poor and actually doing something about it are two different things.
How many poor people are just going to sit and watch their children die from starvation? Not many. Poor people do not want to be poor and they attempt to do something about it, hence high levels of crime committed by people in poverty in capitalist society. They look for illegimate means to gain wealth such as the drugs trade, stealing,etc.

They fail on the virtue that they don't do anything about it. Society, as of late, now encourages and rewards failure through extensive benefit systems.
The benefit system is a joke, no one in the right mind would be encouraged to not work by it. People do not fail 'on the virtue that they don't do anything about it'.
How many times to I have to say PEOPLE DO NOT WISH TO BE POOR and PEOPLE WILL TRY TO ESCAPE POVERY ANYWAY THEY CAN.

They do have a choice, but that choice often requires work and some people do not wish to do that.
Please tell me you believe there exists a correlation between unemployment and a lack of jobs!?

Laziness? Incompetence? Some parents couldn't care less.
You're an ass lol.

Tungsten

5th November 2005, 17:31

drain.you

Don't be so ridiculous. Bill Gates got lucky, he found a product that society wants, suprisingly enough, not everyone manages to do this.

Finding out what society wants and making a fortune providing it has little to do with luck and more to do with resarch and trade.

What if you can't get a job(ie: you are trying to get one but cannot)? What if you are crippled? What if you have became homeless due to an earthquake or hurricane? I don't think that any of them could be said to be the person's fault.

I'm afraid people like this will have to rely on the voluntary support of others.

Everyone has different abilities and skills but everyone has the same needs

Needs don't create anything, but abilities and skills do.

I see your point, someone will have to pay for this bed. However in an equal society, everyone will be paying for each other's existence anyway.

That is part of the problem. We shouldn't be doing that. How do you intend to deal with those who do not wish to be exploited by this system?

Why should any be allowed to have a surplus of anything while another person has none? Because they 'earned it' how can you earn the right to own anything?

Because each of us works for it. Your ideology sounds very anti-worker.

People have the same needs, if I need food/comfort then the next person does, if I have enough money for a food/bed then the next person should. These things are rights, not privleges to be bought.

Does this mean that if you see a beggar on a corner, you are going to empty your bank account to buy him a house?

The basics needs should be provided for everyone because everyone needs them, because every person is a person and every person has needs. If someone decides not to work then they should still be able to live!

That sounds wonderful. So who is going to bother to work in this society of yours?

But please remember, that in capitalism people do not get the worth of their labour

They get paid the market value, determined by the consumer. How is this 'less'?

How many poor people are just going to sit and watch their children die from starvation? Not many.

They have an elaborate benefit system to fall back on.

Poor people do not want to be poor and they attempt to do something about it, hence high levels of crime committed by people in poverty in capitalist society.

What a load of cobblers. How many of those who commit theft are genuinely starving, and not just after unearned money? All of them, I rekon. Read my signature.

The benefit system is a joke, no one in the right mind would be encouraged to not work by it.

I know people on welfare who are better off than I am.

How many times to I have to say PEOPLE DO NOT WISH TO BE POOR and PEOPLE WILL TRY TO ESCAPE POVERY ANYWAY THEY CAN.

Some of them wish to do it by illegal means. You seek the same solution, using the same method, only legally.

Please tell me you believe there exists a correlation between unemployment and a lack of jobs!?

There most definitely is not. People will not work for a wage when they can aquire a comparable amount of money by signing on.